Andrew Tyrie: I strongly agree. We are taking decisions against a very difficult backdrop—periodically fuelled by media hysteria. The subject has acquired some of the characteristics of a religion: apocalyptic predictions abound, and they make good copy. Over nearly 20 years since I first looked at the issue when I was at the Treasury working for John Major, I have become saddened by the way in which the calmer voices of many orthodox scientists and economists, particularly those who do not agree with the current policy prescriptions, have often been drowned out. All the incentives are against speaking up about the subject. Some have described Professor Lindzen of Massachusetts Institute of Technology as the father of modern climate change. He wrote recently that
	"scientists who dissent from...alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libelled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse... Only the most senior scientist today can stand up to this alarmist gale."
	I have spoken to a number of the UK's most senior specialists on the subject, and some feel similarly coerced. I shall read to the House a quotation from one of the major businesses in the UK. It says that
	"the more one looks behind...climate change policy...the more it is based on patent absurdities... Anybody who reveals the truth is scorned."
	A leading economist has said:
	"I have learnt that to say anything about the subject is to be assailed by fundamentalist crackpots."
	Those people are concerned about speaking up but cajoled into not doing so. That is a bad climate in which to take such decisions as this Bill.